Decentralisation

Tuars wrote:

But my point was Dublin benefits more than you are allowing for because of the civil servant wage bill. Did you include this in your figures?

You might like to take the following onboard:

In December 1999, it was announced in the Budget 2000 Speech the intention to proceed with a new programme of decentralisation involving up to 10,000 civil and public servants. This represented a significant extension on the previous programme of decentralisation, which commenced in 1987 and continued through to the 1990s. That programme had involved the relocation of some 4,000 civil service posts to 20 centres in 19 counties, as detailed in the appendix to this document. As a result of that programme, almost half of the numbers (some 14,000) then serving in the civil service were located outside Dublin.

The 2003 announcement should be viewed in the context of overall public service numbers (276,000 in total), which comprise at present 96,000 in the health area, 77,000 in education, 34,000 in local authorities and 12,000, 11,000 and 9,000 in the Defence Forces, Garda Siochana and non-commercial State Bodies, respectively, along with 37,000 in the civil service.

Approximately, half the civil service are located outside Dublin already. In addition, given the nature of the services provided, it follows that a very large proportion of health workers, teachers, local authority employees, and Defence and Garda personnel are located outside Dublin. For example, in the health area, no less than 58,000 personnel serve in Health Boards other than the Eastern Regional Health Authority, while 7,000 Garda personnel are located outside the Dublin Metropolitan area.

Centralisation as you are alluding to, is but a falacy.

Re: wagebill- while impossible to certify the effect the measure may have on the Dublin it may be surmised that the proposed decentralisation would remove 1.2billion in direct spending power power, along with an indeterminate sum in downstream spending power.

This would not be a direct transfer of 1.2 billion to the regions- as its estimated that many two partner or multiple earner households would not be able to find similar employment opportunities in their proposed decentralisation locations.

All-in-all- the decentralisation programme is proported to be a net drain on the exchequer for the next 22 year, up to 2026- before eventually breaking even.

Quite simply- the sums do not add up.

The electorate have been sold a pup by the government.

Also- here is a Public Accounts Committee Assessment of the effects of previous decentralisation programmes of the 1990s here-

DECENTRALISATION EXPERIENCES - SUMMARY

Common Experiences

· overall experience was positive, though it required considerable planning and control

· turnover of staff in work areas being decentralised in many cases is in excess of 90 per cent, with consequential disruption and implications for loss of corporate experience

· as many as twice the number of staffing being decentralised had to transfer (internally and externally) to accommodate the relocation

· high turnover of staff since decentralisation

· desirability/necessity of staff overlap, with obvious resource implications

· desirability of additional resources in areas such as training, personnel and accommodation during the planning/execution phase

· enhanced/improvement accommodation and facilities was plus

· opportunity to introduce new/improved work practices or accelerate change management processes

· some initial loss of customer service and some effect on output and effectiveness

· capacity to deal with urgent short-term demands, through the temporary transfer of staff, is seriously curtailed

Lessons

· impact on staff left behind - may be demoralised, arrangements need to be in place to deal with (any) surpluses, attention and time needed for dealing with their redeployment

· communications - needs to be effective and constant with significant input

· size of office - a decentralised office should be of sufficient size to allow for reasonable staff development, mobility and motivation; it should provide a viable carer pyramid for staff with scope for lateral mobility; the perceived lack of promotion outlets, after the initial phase, can give rise to discontent; there is limited practical value in mobility where there is little or no variety in work; there should be an emphasis on achieving a critical mass of staff in each decentralisation location

· planning - there needs to be extensive preliminary planning involving significant input from management; full assessment of the impacts on customers/users/business/industry - BPR exercises, staff/management restructuring, IT changes etc. to be completed well in advance of moving - establish a project team with a project plan and ensure regular communications

· IT - ensure that a robust IT infrastructure is in place

· HR issues - consider constraints to prevent staff from transferring interdepartmentally soon after assimilation and training; expedite filling of vacancies at clerical level; new recruitment practices required for decentralised locations; specialised technical/professional skills are in short supply in current economic climate; single decentralised location or clustering of locations for any Department would facilitate career paths; regional promotion structures

· Implementation - phasing of staff movements can greatly help in smooth implementation; transfer of functions and staff should be achieved in shortest time-scale possible, consistent with business needs

· Costs - apart from the associated with the provision of accommodation, additional costs are likely to arise to additional staff resources, training, overtime, T& S

· E-Government - proposals should be cognisant of developments in this regard.

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2004/1203/2488917830HM1HENNESSY.html

Hmmm- McCreevy obviously never raided the PAC archives.....

Victor

ishmael whale wrote:

If the good Councillor is looking for something to sell to the people of Mayo, he could start by pointing out that in 2001 Mayo households paid €315 million in tax, but received €356 million in various income supports. This means that, in the swings and roundabouts, Mayo households receive a net €820 in income supports per person. By contrast, Dublin households contribute a net €2,000 in tax per head, and the rest of the Mid East isn’t far behind.

Such a comparison may be erroneous as for example Bank of Ireland will be contributing to the Dublin figure exclusively, because it's headquarters is in Dublin, whereas (presumably) it makes money throughout the country.

Just for the people saying that Charlie was out to make money on stamp duty, how do you reconcile that with Brians budget? http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=206698

Victor

Decentralisation cost to rise sharply, Budget data show
Mark Hennessy, Political Correspondent

The costs of the Government's plan to move 10,500 civil servants out of Dublin have escalated sharply, according to Department of Finance documents released on Budget day.

The Office of Public Works will spend €900 million on new offices for civil servants over the next four years even though just 3,500 officials will move by the end of 2008, rather than the 10,500 originally due to go by the end of 2007

Victor wrote:

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2004/1203/2488917830HM1HENNESSY.html

I think it's both amazing and disturbing that the costs of the relocation plan are only being estimated in terms of acquiring office accomodation & fitting it out

What about the cost of retraining staff and the loss of productivity, not to mention the effect on the morale of the remainaing staff?

In IT, the 'people cost' is always higher than the cost of the hardware, so I guess that the overall cost of the relocation will be huge.

Tuars wrote:

Ishmael's points regarding the west need to be put in that context. The low pupil-teacher ratios, high availability of college places, short commuting times, and lower house prices can largely be attributed to the fact that the local population is constantly migrating to Dublin for work. We need to decentralise the population but we need to do it right….. I think Ishmael's potshots at the west distract from this

I agree that if we aim to promote regional development we need to do it right – and I support decentralisation of power and responsibility to local authorities. However, frequently Western development activists wrongly state their problems to stem from neglect and lack of resourcing. I’m simply redressing the balance and pointing out the reality that considerable resources are devoted to attempting to promote Western development, but they’re not working. Bear in mind that the structure of services you see in place in the West – small schools, regional ITs, regional airports, rails services, grants for industry etc, are the very things that regional activists have campaigned for as what was needed for their areas to address migration.

If a policy is to be of any value it has to start by addressing the reality that the West’s problem stem from scattering resources all over the place, rather than promoting centralisation within regions – as advocated by the Spatial Strategy analysis.

Tuars wrote:

But my point was Dublin benefits more than you are allowing for because of the civil servant wage bill. Did you include this in your figures?

Your conception is simply wrong. Firstly, you will have noted smcarrick’s point that there are significant numbers of public servants located throughout the states. Secondly, if Dublin people pay tax that pays the salary of a locally employed civil servant, they aren’t getting a benefit. They’re covering a cost. Relocating these jobs to regional areas will increase costs. That means taxpayers will be carrying a greater cost for the same services.

You also have to understand (and this is not controversial among economists) that Irish domestic consumer spending does little to stimulate the Irish economy, because the consumer goods we buy are mostly imported [This is not an attempt to advocate some import substitution gig – we can import this stuff cheaper than we can make it]. The concept that fifty civil servants turning up in Kilrush will start some local boom is utter nonsense – as is the alternative argument that Dublin will collapse if 10,000 salaries are moved elsewhere.

Victor wrote:

Such a comparison may be erroneous as for example Bank of Ireland will be contributing to the Dublin figure exclusively, because it's headquarters is in Dublin, whereas (presumably) it makes money throughout the country.[/Victor]

You are right to point out that conceptual problems exist when you attempt to break figures down by county. As I understand it the CSO data attempts to break income etc. down by household location. For example, the high figures for Kildare probably includes people who work in Dublin and return home every night.

The essential point – that Dublin is a profit centre and the West requires and receives significant subsidies – is clearly made. A real debate on regional policy is possible once we cross the threshold of accepting that the West’s problems are not caused by lack of state resourcing.

ishmael whale wrote:

...considerable resources are devoted to attempting to promote Western development, but they’re not working...

That's a bit of a sweeping statement. They are working in some cases, in others they are not. You could argue that the suction effect of Dublin is so great that more resources should be sent west to redress the balance. (I wouldn't argue that, I think it's a problem of policy, I agree with you on this:

ishmael whale wrote:

If a policy is to be of any value it has to start by addressing the reality that the West’s problem stem from scattering resources all over the place, rather than promoting centralisation within regions – as advocated by the Spatial Strategy analysis.

Agreed. The problem is not decentralisation in principle rather it is this particular implementation.

ishmael whale wrote:

Your conception is simply wrong. Firstly, you will have noted smcarrick’s point that there are significant numbers of public servants located throughout the states.

But in most cases they are scattered too thin to have significant impact as you point out above. Again a problem with impementation rather than principle.

ishmael whale wrote:

Secondly, if Dublin people pay tax that pays the salary of a locally employed civil servant, they aren’t getting a benefit. They’re covering a cost.

But they are no different to non-Dublin taxpayers in that respect. They gain the benefit in terms of the civil servants salary being fed back into the local economy (it's not all spent on imports, what about services?) and they gain in terms of having a critical mass of local population that is able to sustain a viable community. The non-Dubliner is losing out in this case.

ishmael whale wrote:

Relocating these jobs to regional areas will increase costs. That means taxpayers will be carrying a greater cost for the same services.

Of course there will be relocation costs and if we continue with the proposed implementation there will be higher long term costs. A properly implemented decentralisation programme should not have permanently higher long term costs.

ishmael whale wrote:

The concept that fifty civil servants turning up in Kilrush will start some local boom is utter nonsense

I agree and that is the problem with this implementation. But it's a matter of degree. Relocate 500-1000 to a hub town and it will have an impact. Decentralisation of departments to Castlebar and Athlone for example have had significant impact on those towns.

ishmael whale wrote:

– as is the alternative argument that Dublin will collapse if 10,000 salaries are moved elsewhere.

Dublin won't collapse but over time the population might stabilise or fall back to European levels (I think Dublin has about a third of the country's population at the moment whereas the European average is somewhere around a fifth for capital cities). That's a goal that is vital to the future growth of the economy.

ishmael whale wrote:

The essential point – that Dublin is a profit centre and the West requires and receives significant subsidies – is clearly made.

Maybe so but it's not so clear why. Centralisation of the state apparatus over decades has contributed significantly to making Dublin the profit centre that it is and has also contributed to the west needing so much subsidy.

That is why I support decentralisation in principle.

ishmael whale wrote:

A real debate on regional policy is possible once we cross the threshold of accepting that the West’s problems are not caused by lack of state resourcing.

I don't think we're anywhere near crossing that threshold. Although I might concede that the problem is not the quantity of the state funds but rather the quality of the state policy. It's a problem that seems to be widespread in this government, i.e. more money than sense.

Tuars wrote:

You could argue that the suction effect of Dublin is so great that more resources should be sent west to redress the balance. (I wouldn't argue that, I think it's a problem of policy, I agree with you on this:

I’m mainly interested in getting the point across that the West cannot claim neglect. Clearly we agree on this, and on the need to follow an approach along the lines of the Spatial Strategy – i.e. designate a small number of regional centres for development.

Tuars wrote:

But they are no different to non-Dublin taxpayers in that respect. They gain the benefit in terms of the civil servants salary being fed back into the local economy (it's not all spent on imports, what about services?) and they gain in terms of having a critical mass of local population that is able to sustain a viable community. The non-Dubliner is losing out in this case.

It is simply a fact that Irish domestic consumer spending does little to promote the domestic economy. What we make money out of is producing stuff for export, and what we spend it on we import. That may seem pat and dismissive of using the consumer spending of 10,000 civil servants to stimulate development, but it is simply the situation.

I would query the usefulness of spending money moving Government office staff about in any configuration, especially when we end up paying more for the same service. Even if we move all 10,000 to one other location, all we do is briefly inflate the housing market and maybe move a few retail jobs from hither to dither. So Aldi makes a little less turnover in Blanchardstown and a little more in Cork. That result is not worth much of an investment and, while no-one has calculated the total cost of such a move, for the present programme figures of the order of 900 million and more are being touted around for the building costs alone – never mind retraining, IT etc. This simply amounts to a big investment for no – or negative – return.

Tuars wrote:

Of course there will be relocation costs and if we continue with the proposed implementation there will be higher long term costs. A properly implemented decentralisation programme should not have permanently higher long term costs.

It depends what you mean by ‘properly implemented.’ The offices already decentralised have higher ongoing costs relating to travel and communications, as either transport or technology is required to facilitate contact between people who used to be located in the same building. The only way I can see of reducing these costs is by recentralising.

Tuars wrote:

Decentralisation of departments to Castlebar and Athlone for example have had significant impact on those towns.

I’m not aware of any evidence showing consumer spending relating to decentralised offices makes any impact on the local economy. Castlebar is slap in the middle of Mayo, Ballina is also host to a decentralised office. Yet, as we can see above, Mayo is still a net recipient of state funds.

We’ve already shot the decentralisation bolt. It was a failure too.

Tuars wrote:

Dublin won't collapse but over time the population might stabilise or fall back to European levels (I think Dublin has about a third of the country's population at the moment whereas the European average is somewhere around a fifth for capital cities). That's a goal that is vital to the future growth of the economy.

With respect, this is the kind of thinking that has been used to starve the city of resources, with the result that we’ve all ending up living here but without the infrastructure that we need. Dublin is not a large city, so talk of it ‘falling back to European levels’ is unnecessary.

As for goals vital to the future growth of the economy, the most important objective is to keep Ireland in the game at all. If, for example, Trinity College is having trouble even featuring internationally as an ‘also ran’ its fairly clear what GMIT’s Castlebar campus is contributing. We need to keep our eye abroad and make sure that Dublin stays on the global radar. Otherwise the country is gone.

Tuars wrote:

Maybe so but it's not so clear why. Centralisation of the state apparatus over decades has contributed significantly to making Dublin the profit centre that it is and has also contributed to the west needing so much subsidy.

I’m sorry, but this is complete fantasy. For example, we’ve recently had the revelation that Dublin Airport’s runway was deliberately kept too short to take fully laden cargo aircraft in a blunt attempt to divert traffic to Shannon. In the split up of Aer Rianta it became clear that Dublin Airport has been silently subsidising the other airports for years and is taking over the debt from Shannon and Cork. And we still have the Shannon stopover. All of this is the result of local regional lobbying.

Notwithstanding all this we have to endure a Minister of State welcoming the recent Ryanair deal in Shannon as evidence of what was feasible once the ‘dead hand of Dublin’ was removed.

Let’s think about this. Dublin is constrained by the dead hand of Shannon compelling it to keep its runway so short that some aircraft need to partially unload in Manchester, every second plane from Dublin to the US is hijacked and forced to land in Shannon to cough up a farcical toll and, notwithstanding that, Dublin now has to take on the debt incurred building Shannon’s largely unused passenger terminal while its own bursts at the seams. But a Minister of State is happily able to make a public statement exactly at variance with this reality, and get away with it without question. This is the lack of balance that needs to be redressed.

If someone can show we what in this suggests that Dublin benefited in some manner from being the seat of Government I’d be eternally grateful.

http://www.examiner.ie/pport/web/business/Full_Story/did-sgMgg8tP0fvfwsg7OWirIStPSk.asp

Shannon Airport move the ‘dawning of a new era for tourism in Ireland’
By Jimmy Woulfe and Ian Guider
YESTERDAY’S announcement by Ryanair was described as one of the most important developments in Shannon Airport’s history.

Minister of State Tim O’Malley said the Ryanair development plan will connect Shannon and the west of Ireland to mainland Europe to a far greater level than before. …….. “It is a vindication by those of us who have for years been vigorously advocating independence for Shannon Airport so that the ‘dead hand’ of Dublin could be lifted from Shannon’s decision making.”

Tuars wrote:

Although I might concede that the problem is not the quantity of the state funds but rather the quality of the state policy. It's a problem that seems to be widespread in this government, i.e. more money than sense.

Certainly we can point to a quite a few decisions that involved money being spent for no gain – e voting comes to mind. But, on the face of, the CSO data clearly shows that government revenue is chiefly raised in Dublin and the Mid East region, and the West does well out of intra-regional transfers and provision of state services. This is a simple, but little recognised, reality.

ishmael whale wrote:

It is simply a fact that Irish domestic consumer spending does little to promote the domestic economy. What we make money out of is producing stuff for export, and what we spend it on we import.

So you're ordering your Chinese takeaway directly from Bejing then:)?

ishmael whale wrote:

I would query the usefulness of spending money moving Government office staff about in any configuration...

Great, why don't we all move to Dublin so. It'll cut down on the transport and communication costs if we all just sit on the M50, roll down the car window and shout at each other:p. Is that just lip service to the NSS on your part?

ishmael whale wrote:

I’m not aware of any evidence showing consumer spending relating to decentralised offices makes any impact on the local economy. Castlebar is slap in the middle of Mayo, Ballina is also host to a decentralised office. Yet, as we can see above, Mayo is still a net recipient of state funds.

Well, for better or worse I've lived in these towns and I've seen the benefits. By the sounds of it you've never been to Mayo or you would realise that decentralising part of a department isn't going to turn the whole county into a roaring tiger economy. It certainly made a difference though.

ishmael whale wrote:

With respect, this is the kind of thinking that has been used to starve the city of resources, with the result that we’ve all ending up living here but without the infrastructure that we need. Dublin is not a large city, so talk of it ‘falling back to European levels’ is unnecessary.

With respect, no it's not. The kind of thinking that has left us all ending up living here but without the infrastructure that we need is the one that forces people to migrate to the city at a rate that it cannot support because they have no alternative employment in the regions.

ishmael whale wrote:

As for goals vital to the future growth of the economy, the most important objective is to keep Ireland in the game at all. If, for example, Trinity College is having trouble even featuring internationally as an ‘also ran’ its fairly clear what GMIT’s Castlebar campus is contributing. We need to keep our eye abroad and make sure that Dublin stays on the global radar. Otherwise the country is gone.

But if the infrastructure is under strain because of over-population then Dublin's ability will be restricted. I see you're also buying into the 'collapse of Dublin' theory that you so eloquently dismissed a few moments ago. The NSS addresses in depth the issue of Dublin in the global context. Having a vibrant Dublin does not have to be at the cost of having run-down regions.

ishmael whale wrote:

I’m sorry, but this is complete fantasy.

No it's not. It's a well documented phenomenon in the history of the state and it is responsible to a large degree for the dependency culture in the regions that you bemoan. The airports situation that you cite is an example of this. The lack of local power in the administration process leads to the farcical situation of everything being routed through central office and round the back door, resulting in everyone getting the short end of the stick.

ishmael whale wrote:

But, on the face of, the CSO data clearly shows that government revenue is chiefly raised in Dublin and the Mid East region, and the West does well out of intra-regional transfers and provision of state services.

That is not disputed. As I said already, it is the reason why this is the case that is important.

Tuars- what you are essentially advocating is devolving decision making and policy planning on a regional basis to the different regions?

Unfortunately- first and foremost- we are a small country playing on a global playing field. The individual regions in their own right, quite simply would not have the critical mass necessary to compete internationally.

In addition- we are particularly adept at playing parochial politics (a la Tim O'Malley) in this country. We cannot be going around stabbing each other in the back- we need a cohesive, coordinated approach to both government and the regions.

At present the BMW regions do receive preferential treatment (both from Ireland, and also from the EU) but given their relative prosperity- when compared with the new member states- this is not going to continue.

As you are no doubt aware, we are a net contributor to the EU (for the first time ever)- and no longer can put our mealy mouths out looking for EU largess in Brussels.

This should not be an invitation to instead put a mealy mouth looking for largess from Dublin instead......

If you are familiar with the economics of this country- you will know that we are quite unique in that our GDP is higher than our GNP (when transfer payments and repatriation of multinational profits are taken into account). Farming, and our traditional industries, have shrunk to a shadow of their former selves. Whether we like it or not, we are dependent on the multinationals who have located here.

Intel (in Leixlip) chose to locate in Co. Kildare because they were sold the site on the strength of 1) Closeness to the airport, 2) Closeness to several major universities, 3) availability of a large and mobile workforce (much of whom are EU nationals but not Irish). These factors do not exist elsewhere in the coutry (6 other possible sites were rejected for these reasons) and are incapable of being replicated. The presence of Intel alone provided an impetus to other multinationals in the IT sector in particular to locate in the area.

Perhaps I am being a little harsh, but I do detect a note of begrudgery in your comments, Dublin has XYZ- we should have them (instead).......

Decentralisation, in theory, is not necessarily a bad thing. The current proposal, as it stands, is ludicrous in the extreme. The fact that it has trampled head and foot over the national spatial strategy- is conveniently ignored, the jobs for the boys attitude is self serving in the extreme- and even if the conservative pricings are correct- a massive drain on the exchequer for the next 23 years (a figure of 920 million between now and 2008 being mentioned in today's Irish Times).

Will you at very least admit that the scheme, as it stands, is nothing but an ill-hidden attempt at purchasing votes by the incumbent government?

I think smcarrick has put the case in a very sober and reflective way. I don't really need to add to that, but sure I had it all typed up and everything.

tuars wrote:

So you're ordering your Chinese takeaway directly from Bejing then?

No, but an economy based on selling each other Chinese takeaways is not feasible.

tuars wrote:

So Great, why don't we all move to Dublin so.

I have no problem with a policy based on encouraging Dublin as the only centre of development, so long as we decide that’s what we want to do. There’s five million people in the State of Victoria. 3 million of them live contentedly in Melbourne. If that’s our model fine.

But if we want to encourage regional development lets do it in a way that makes sense. The NSS strategy, and Buchanon before it, suggests that the only hope is to create a small number of concentrations in the regions that might be able to compete with Dublin. Moving office staff about the place, and manufacturing a requirement for people to travel and use communications technology where none exists, makes no contribution to this process. However, to take a particular example, implementing the Hanly report would make a contribution, as significant hospital services could be delivered within regions and national dependency on Dublin hospitals would be reduced.

tuars wrote:

Well, for better or worse I've lived in these towns and I've seen the benefits. By the sounds of it you've never been to Mayo or you would realise that decentralising part of a department isn't going to turn the whole county into a roaring tiger economy. It certainly made a difference though.

Quantify the benefit. Its not showing up on the radar. I have no expectation that the fact that significant numbers of office staff have been moved to Castlebar and Ballina would make any discernable difference to the county’s fortune. But I’m arguing against such moves. If you want to argue that decentralisation makes a difference that justifies investing a whole pile of money and ongoing increased administration costs then you’d want to be showing some kind of payback.

Incidently, I don’t see how going to Mayo will make me realise that ‘decentralising part of a department isn't going to turn the whole county into a roaring tiger economy’. In fairness, I think on reflection you will admit that this is an empty statement – what’s it supposed to mean?

tuars wrote:

With respect, no it's not. The kind of thinking that has left us all ending up living here but without the infrastructure that we need is the one that forces people to migrate to the city at a rate that it cannot support because they have no alternative employment in the regions.

I honestly can’t make sense of this comment. The policy actively followed by successive governments has been to prioritise the needs of the regions ahead of Dublin. How this can be described as forcing people to migrate to Dublin is beyond me.

tuars wrote:

But if the infrastructure is under strain because of over-population then Dublin's ability will be restricted. I see you're also buying into the 'collapse of Dublin' theory that you so eloquently dismissed a few moments ago. The NSS addresses in depth the issue of Dublin in the global context. Having a vibrant Dublin does not have to be at the cost of having run-down regions.

We’re talking about two separate things. You are talking about the collapse of Dublin in the sense of too much development making the place grind to a halt. I’m not talking about collapse in that sense – I don’t actually think I’ve used the term ‘collapse’ at all.

I’m simply pointing out that if we don’t invest to ensure that, for example, are third level colleges can operate to a global standard that all this prosperity will just leave. Investing money moving office staff around for no reason diverts resources from things like this that we actually need. If we go on spending our money on this kind of nonsense then congestion won’t be a problem because we’ll be back to the prospect of inviting the last person to leave the country to turn off the lights.

tuars wrote:

No it's not. It's a well documented phenomenon in the history of the state and it is responsible to a large degree for the dependency culture in the regions that you bemoan

If its documented, give us some links. My picture of the history of the state is somewhat different. My understanding is that, concerned that Dublin accounted for one third of the population in the sixties despite projects like rural electrification and Dev’s idea of the ‘ruralisation of industry’, the Government commissioned the Buchanon report which told them more or less what the National Spatial Strategy told them. It said that the only alternative to growth centred on Dublin was to pick a small number of regional centres and grow them as alternatives. This died in the usual controversy over whether Kilkenny people have longer mickeys than folk from Waterford and Dublin continued to grow by default.

tuars wrote:

The airports situation that you cite is an example of this. The lack of local power in the administration process leads to the farcical situation of everything being routed through central office and round the back door, resulting in everyone getting the short end of the stick.

With respect, I don’t think this does the situation justice. Shannon airport is the prime indisputable example of Dublin getting rightly shafted for the intended benefit of the regions, and at a loss to the country as a whole. I think the attempt by the Minister of State to rewrite history, as I have described above, requires a little more acknowledgement than ‘everyone getting the short end of the stick’. Dublin very clearly got the wrong end of the stick, and in fact is still carrying the wrong end of the stick through the continuation of the stopover requirement and through taking over Shannon Airport’s debts. For most of this period Shannon was quite happy with its end of the stick.

I know this has all the elements of a bun fight, but the objective reality is that Dublin was shafted. Trying to equate the position of the shafter with the shaftee just won’t wash.

tuars wrote:

That is not disputed. As I said already, it is the reason why this is the case that is important.

I’m glad that you are not disputing that government revenue is chiefly raised in Dublin and the Mid East region, and the West does well out of intra-regional transfers and provision of state services. Many people do dispute this, or at least behave as if this was not the case.

smccarrick wrote:

Tuars- what you are essentially advocating is devolving decision making and policy planning on a regional basis to the different regions?

Not all decision making should be devolved but certainly there is room for a lot more. As I alrady said the dependency culture in the regions is largely due to the powerlessness of having to go cap-in-hand to central government to fund every little scheme, many of which could be dealt with quite comfortably by a local administration without impacting the national position.

smccarrick wrote:

..these factors do not exist elsewhere in the coutry (6 other possible sites were rejected for these reasons) and are incapable of being replicated. The presence of Intel alone provided an impetus to other multinationals in the IT sector in particular to locate in the area.

I don't agree that these factors don't exist elsewhere or are incapable of being replicated. They have been replicated to varying degrees throughout the country. Your example of Intel providing an impetus to other multinationals is an argument in principle for the merits of decentralisation.

smccarrick wrote:

Perhaps I am being a little harsh, but I do detect a note of begrudgery in your comments, Dublin has XYZ- we should have them (instead).......

No, not begrudging. I'm trying to explain the reason why Dublin has this advantage (if you can call it that). I'm addressing ishmael's specific point about Dublin being a net contributor and the regions being net receivers and trying to show that government centralisation is to blame for much of it. BTW, I think it's a distraction from the main issue. This should not be a Dublin vs The Country debate. A proper decentralisation strategy would relieve the pressure on Dublin and bring economic growth to the regions. It could be a win-win (it won't be if this implementaiton is followed).

smccarrick wrote:

Will you at very least admit that the scheme, as it stands, is nothing but an ill-hidden attempt at purchasing votes by the incumbent government?

Already have... read my posts again.

Tuars wrote:

I'm addressing ishmael's specific point about Dublin being a net contributor and the regions being net receivers and trying to show that government centralisation is to blame for much of it.

Proposal to shorten discussion. Explain through what mechanism government centralisation in Dublin causes Dublin to be a net contributor and the regions net receivers. Particular reference to the case of Shannon airport would be most useful in this context.

Tuars wrote:

BTW, I think it's a distraction from the main issue. This should not be a Dublin vs The Country debate. A proper decentralisation strategy would relieve the pressure on Dublin and bring economic growth to the regions.

I totally agree, but to be honest its regional activists that put it in this context. I'm open to the idea of national solidarity but this cuts both ways. I don't mind too much making the best of Dublin's public transport system, so long as the West understands I and other Dubliners are and have put up with a lot to enable the country to afford to provide their rail service. That's not the case at present. And you really do have to wonder at the Western Development Commission on the one hand saying move to the West for a twenty minute commute and on the other saying they despirately need a Western Rail Corridor at a time when you could fill any reasonable amount of carriages on the line from Dublin to Drogheda.

Decentralisation is fine too - so long as we mean real decentralisation and not moving office staff about.

ishmael whale wrote:

No, but an economy based on selling each other Chinese takeaways is not feasible.

That's not the point and you know it. (We're trying to outdo each other in faciteousness here).

ishmael whale wrote:

I have no problem with a policy based on encouraging Dublin as the only centre of development..

Then you can't really complain about subsidising the regions to offset the imbalances that this causes.

ishmael whale wrote:

Incidently, I don’t see how going to Mayo will make me realise that ‘decentralising part of a department isn't going to turn the whole county into a roaring tiger economy’. In fairness, I think on reflection you will admit that this is an empty statement – what’s it supposed to mean?

Centralised thinking in action

. I'm just saying that there's more to solving the economic problems of Mayo then decentralising a few civil servants. It might be helpful to actually have some experience of the place to get a sense of this.

ishmael whale wrote:

I honestly can’t make sense of this comment. The policy actively followed by successive governments has been to prioritise the needs of the regions ahead of Dublin. How this can be described as forcing people to migrate to Dublin is beyond me.

I don't think prioritising the needs of the regions correctly describes it. Government policy has not favoured the regions in any meaningful way. They have paid lip-service to the needs of the regions throwing them a few crumbs from the table while letting Dublin grow to an unmanageable size. Despite all the rhetoric the trend throughout the life of the state has been to more centralised government and state structures.

ishmael whale wrote:

We’re talking about two separate things. You are talking about the collapse of Dublin in the sense of too much development making the place grind to a halt. I’m not talking about collapse in that sense – I don’t actually think I’ve used the term ‘collapse’ at all.

Maybe I misunderstood but you seem to imply that if we diverted resources to the regions then Dublin's global standing would suffer.

ishmael whale wrote:

If its documented, give us some links.

Sorry, I've no links offhand. My sources are from books (a little old fashioned, I know). Off the top of my head I remember Joe Lee writing a bit about it in his Ireland 1912-1985 book.

ishmael whale wrote:

It said that the only alternative to growth centred on Dublin was to pick a small number of regional centres and grow them as alternatives. This died in the usual controversy over whether Kilkenny people have longer mickeys than folk from Waterford and Dublin continued to grow by default.

Exactly my point. The rhetoric versus the reality.

Sorry, cross posted.

ishmael whale wrote:

Proposal to shorten discussion. Explain through what mechanism government centralisation in Dublin causes Dublin to be a net contributor and the regions net receivers. Particular reference to the case of Shannon airport would be most useful in this context.

I was just going to propose to leave Shannon out of this as it's slightly OT

.

I think I've already answered the first part. Firstly, through a stable, secure workforce that is large enough that it significantly impacts the local economy and gives it critical mass to attract further investment and secondly through implementing state policy that maintains and promotes this situation.

Tuars wrote:

I think I've aleady answered the first part. Firstly, through a stable, secure workforce that is large enough that it significantly impacts the local economy and gives it critical mass to attract further investment.

Without all those civil servants, Dublin would have a large workforce and all the other wherewithal that goes with a large concentration of population. That's really the key feature that makes Dublin attractive. I'll say again, we can lose 10,000 salaries. That's not what the issue is about.

Tuars wrote:

and secondly through implementing state policy that maintains and promotes this situation.

This I really don't see, and I really do think Shannon is the case to explain in this context. Even the case of Knock isn't so blatent a case - its just a poorly located airport, without any particular impact one way or the other on Dublin other than taking up money that could be used for something else.

Dinarius

For those who believe that Dublin's population might stabelize and be helped in this aim by moving 10,000 civil servants to the regions; Dublin's population is currently increasing at a rate of 20,000 per annum.

Moving 10,000 (now 3,000+) to, in Bertie speak, slow down the expansion of Dublin (I'm paraphrasing) is utter tosh.

As currently envisaged, about two months population increase are being moved over four years.

How Irish is that?

D.

Latest AHCPS circular on the last meeting on Decentralisation with the official side.

S.

Taking the crucial point

“.. The position adopted officially is that all future vacancies in all departments and offices, whether arising from promotion or recruitment, must be used in support of the decentralisation programme. ….. all future general service promotions will be subject to agreement to decentralise. …..”

So, effectively, this suggests that the only criterion that will be used in filling positions will be willingness to work in one of the decentralised locations. This will take precedence over any other factor relating to fitness to serve in the position.

All I can say is grunt and ugh.

uncivilservant

From the PSEU report of the latest Decentralisation meeting:

Before inviting a Staff Side response the Official Side Representatives explained that the proposals for General Service grades included agreed equivalent grades. They also clarified that the redeployment of surplus staff in Dublin would be done by Departments gathering details of their own surplus staff and then forwarding these details to the central ‘clearing’ mechanism where they would be prioritised for redeployment in accordance with criteria that the Official Side was open to discuss with the Unions before proceeding.

The Staff Side Representatives were unanimous in response. Each of the Unions made it clear that the Official Side proposals were absolutely unacceptable in their entirety and that if the Official Side was proposing seriously that these arrangements would apply then the Unions would withdraw from these discussions and would consult their members about the adoption of a policy of non co-operation with the entire process. The PSEU Representative pointed out that the Union had stated two absolutes from the beginning i.e. that nobody would be forced to re-locate and also that career opportunities would remain for staff who chose to stay living and working in Dublin. It was pointed out that the effect of the Official Side document would be to eliminate all promotion opportunities in Dublin and this would never be regarded as acceptable.

Not exactly NO SURRENDER, but a good start nonetheless.

the redeployment of surplus staff in Dublin would be done by Departments gathering details of their own surplus staff and then forwarding these details to the central ‘clearing’ mechanism

This probably means that Java programmers will be offered jobs in the Leinster House coffee shop.

NewDubliner wrote:

This probably means that Java programmers will be offered jobs in the Leinster House coffee shop.

Not a million miles from the truth- rumours abound that the entire Information Systems Division in one of the Departments down for the first wave have been told they are all going to be reassigned to "administrative" positions. Currently some administrative staff already down the country have lodged objections to this- on the grounds that the erstwhile IT staff will hog some of their more interesting work. Swings and roundabouts.....

The official side demands are so blunt, you'd wonder if they're inviting the unions to dig in so that the government will be spared the embarrassment of implementing a plan which, even with 100% cooperation would cost the nation dearly?

BCB

Bloke i know is a civil servant and he does literally fcuk all and get paid mega bucks for it...lucky bastard.......... :rolleyes:

BCB wrote:

Bloke i know is a civil servant and he does literally fcuk all and get paid mega bucks for it...lucky bastard.......... :rolleyes:

Perhaps....
I'm a civil servant- I worked a 14 hour day today, along with 2 of my colleagues because an item of urgent work suddenly appeared.

Comments like yours, totally aside from the fact that they are off-topic, are a cynical attempt to paint an entire group of people with the same brush. I am not denying that there are some lazy people in the civil service- but to even suggest its a common trait to us all is offensive. Having worked in the private sector for 6 years prior to joining the civil service- I am happy to inform you, the grass is not greener on the other side.

Just because your friend does shag all, does not mean that there are not large numbers of dedicated people who take pride in their work.

S.

BolBill

smccarrick wrote:

Not a million miles from the truth- rumours abound that the entire Information Systems Division in one of the Departments down for the first wave have been told they are all going to be reassigned to "administrative" positions. Currently some administrative staff already down the country have lodged objections to this- on the grounds that the erstwhile IT staff will hog some of their more interesting work. Swings and roundabouts.....

They aint rumours, I work in IT and my jobs gonna be out sourced because hardly anybody is decentralising from the IT area. Looks like I'll be going back to general service to a job that won't exist, then I WILL be sitting on my arse doing feck all.

You gotta love Bertie and his wonderful election ideas - Asshole